Quote:
Originally Posted by Zythryn
Which definition?
If the term 'marraige' was first used to describe a Catholic sacrament, then we have changed the definition to include many people not included in the original definition. Should we perhaps tell all the Lutherans, Methodists, Athiests, etc that they are not married?
And as mentioned, the chuch performed homesexual marriages as far back as the 1100s.
|
Frankly, I don't care what any of the churches do, because I don't bother with any of them. I'm talking about my definition of the word "marriage."
Both motorcycles and bicycles are called “bikes,” but, technically, only bicycles are bikes. Should the same lexical flexibility be applied to the definition of “marriage”? Maybe it should, and maybe it shouldn’t. I wouldn’t want my definition to keep good people from all the rights they deserve or from having legal partnership with the ones they love. Still, I’m not yet sure why I should have to give up my definition of “marriage” in order for them to get everything they think they deserve.
I’m guilty of dragging this tread OT. Sorry, I’m looking for a way out it. My practical assertion, stated succinctly, is that if the homosexual community had pushed for same-sex domestic partnerships instead of same-sex marriages I think they would be much further along toward what they want. And I’ll admit that there is self-righteous indignation about the word “marriage” on both sides of this issue.
Now, back to the topic: Is homosexuality unnatural? I think absolutely not.
